fred8033

Though I always differ on "age based" and "traditional patrols" and NSPs, I 100% agree on a few key points. 100% agree ... Adults "screw things up. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.". Let the scouts decide ... with very minimal guidance ... and try to balance patrols (somewhat with many caveats). Even this point... I've often seen adults saying the scout's are deciding, but then I watch and the adults subvert the scout's independent decision making. Scouts want to be with their friends. The best patrols are where the patrol are (or become) friends and want to spend time together. ... Since the scouts plan, camp, cook, eat, sleep, game, and go to activities together, it really helps if the scouts naturally want to spend time together. IMHO, patrols start to fail when scout ditch their patrol to spend time with their friends in another patrol. Perhaps the scout should be in the other patrol then? IMHO, new scout patrols work well when 10+ join at the same time and NSPs are used to rapidly get scouts up to speed. But, there is no reason to keep those scouts in that patrol long term. Let the scout's decide.

Wow. So much of what you wrote seems extremely predictable. BUT, we've seen that happen many times in scouting. My scouting days are over mostly, but in my two decades as a leader, the registrar was critical to fixing so so so many issues. In fact, the registrar was pretty much the only person who could fix unit specific issues.

That's the grey area. Similar things can be said for band booster clubs, but IRS did go after them. Individuals are charged for their experiences. If only one kid (the kid who earned the money benefits), then that's a strong argument for private benefit. On the other hand, if the scout has $10,000 in his account because he raised $50,000 for scouts, then it can be argued it's an incentive that raised more money for scouting than if the private benefit incentive was not there. There is nothing new here. No new information or updated guidance.

Great point @InquisitiveScouter !! Always answer with an authoritative reference when possible. Eagle scout service project workbook, Guide To Advancement and Guide To Safe Scouting are great tools.

To clarify ... I've seen good district commissioners, roundtable commissioners and such. My criticism is very specific aimed at the "unit commissioners". I believe the concept of "unit commissioner" is fundamentally flawed.

Contingent representation means a percent of the award instead of billable hours; usually. The lawyer won't earn more money by returning the client's calls. So not getting a response in a large class action is not surprising. Effectively contingent cases means less earned per hour with each extra hour invested. The least hours invested the better for the law firm.

That might need clarification. Is it 1 billion of the 2.4? Or is it a large sum paid by invoices over the last 4.5 years as part of bankruptcy proceedings? And two more groups that is being paid as a combination of invoiced hours to cover bankruptcy administration (some law firms) and shared client awards (other law firms)? I am really curious what the bankruptcy legal fees were before the settlement? And what the admin cost will be after? And what portion of the awards will be shared with attorneys? Total before and after must be over a billion. I'm just curious.

Commissioner corps? District commissioners have worked okay, but I've never, never seen unit commissioners work well. IMHO, 98% of the time unit commissioners is a broken concept ... for many, many, many reasons. The quality issue is because scouting is conceptually simple, but the implementation is way overly complex; too complex for most leaders. Worse, the program delivery has far too much variety. The program would do better if it focused more on getting the scouts outside and being active. Worry less about leadership and character. Instead, focus on being active. Then, leadership and character comes as a result of being active.

Agreed. Quality control is a major issue. ... Scouting is like ordering a McDonalds Quarter Pounder and having equal odds of getting chicken nuggets, a taco or dog food. Units have such different personalities and habits. Leaders are even more varied. When the scouting magic is there, it's a wonderful experience. It's easy to miss out on that magic though.

If I had to do it again, starting in 2nd or 3rd grade would have been plenty early enough. Just like anything, the program got old fast.

My apologies for the difficulty and pain of this process. I am sure it's awful. Question ... Would the $10k-$20k paid to the trust be refunded? Seriously. I am asking as I am thinking the cost is to pay extra expenses not covered by the trust. Attorney bills. Court reporters. Coordination, processing, etc, etc. If an attorney charged $300+ an hour and it took 6 hours for the deposition, I am thinking that cost was $2500 for the deposition at least. I am just curious if all the funds would be refunded or just the unspent portion of the funds. I trust the plan stays alive. I also just want this done.

#1 Game systems and internet growth #2 Burnout by expanding to younger and younger ages. #3 Lack of perceived rich and rewarding program; whether caused by burnout or too much focus on leadership or just plan lack of focus on fun and adventure. Now, those 1990s kids are having kids and deciding there are better ways for their own kids to spend time. IMHO, little of the membership drop is about policies. It's about product and perception of the product.

Should not be a surprise.

100% dead on correct. Outdoor adventures sells itself. Leadership is boring and can be gotten many, many, many other ways. Scouting flounders when explicitly teaching leadership. Very few people can teach "leadership"; virtually zero scout leaders. Perhaps, if BSA sells itself on teaching leadership, the chief scout should be Tony Robbins or the next Stephen Covey. On the flip side, scout leaders are really good at teaching the outdoor skills and enabling campouts and adventures. And, by being outdoors, you learn leadership and fellowship and and responsibility and helping each other. But, don't market based on that. Market adventure and outdoors.

We never had clean terminology ever. It was always confusing. BSA was always Boy Scouts of America and Cub Scouts were always members of BSA and thus were Boy Scouts. ... It's just that we were so so used to the terminology. Perhaps, it's now ... in order of my preference Scout Pack versus Scout Troop Cub Scouts versus Troop Scouts Cub Scouts versus Scouts Cub Scouts versus older scouts Pack Scouts versus Troop Scouts

Why? Is it that parents see meetings at the church and assume church oversight? The insurance company is saying be responsible or don't do it at all. Simply meeting at the church infers oversight. Liability is not waived by a legal document between the church and BSA because the parents are not part of the agreement. This feels like a long-evolving legal interpretation. Effectively, if you own something, you are responsible. The church owns the building, so the church has responsibility to protect those using the building.

Great answer. I've even seen it as patrol of one going it alone.

Strictly speaking, the scout is done with the project when the beneficiary signs the paper. This is not about the scout or the "Eagle project". It's that maintenance was not considered sufficiently; not by the scout, the scoutmaster or the beneficiary. Perhaps a solid weed mesh or a different base to minimize weeks. This is very common. Eagle projects get installed without long-term consideration. Too many Eagle projects are removed / undone a year or two after they were installed. OR, the next Eagle scout project to fix / repair a previous Eagle project.

All of them. Explicit policies. Controversies. Societal change. Churches are not 100% altruistic. Churches used scouting to advance their own purpose: to develop faith, not directly but thru the side-door. Even if it's not your own faith, it still helps develop faith. ... With all the changes and controversies, charter orgs are re-thinking does scouting really help advance their own purpose.

Lots of data qualifiers could be put in. - 60 million youth sports ... how many covered by the safe sports site - Safe sports documents 220+ so far for this year. Probably 300+ before end of the year. 300+ for 2023. - Most of BSA's files are when BSA had 3 million to 4 million registered. So, comparing the data is really hard. On first glance, there seems to be a strong correlation though.

Digging up old ugly argument ... I don't thing BSA is that different than any other youth program. Ineligible files had 5000 to 7000 from 1960s onward. Many from 1970s and 1980s. SafeSports has 22000; a few from 1990s. Most from 2010+. Lots of nuances can be argued. Awareness now versus then. Number of youth and adults involved. Nature of program. Nature of crimes. But, generally I don't think BSA is any different. If anything, BSA was tracking it earlier and had youth protection training earlier.

Thanks. I've never seen that one before. Interesting how they publish ineligible names publicly. https://uscenterforsafesport.org/

I agree on this. Even YPT should be 3rd party certification. Serious question --> Is there a 3rd party organization that does YPT certifications? ... If not, can BSA spin off their YPT to be an independent body that then would work with more than one youth program. The new org could learn and improve independent of BSA. ... IMHO, this would be a good thing.

Our arguments might not be incompatible. The methods all work together. It's not that you use one method at a time. The patrol method overlaps with the outdoor method to have patrols planning and doing outdoor adventures. It's adult association overlapping with the outdoor method to get scouts outside being active. The methods working together achieve the mission. It's like Baden-Powell said: Advancement is like a suntan. Something you get naturally whilst having fun in the outdoors. We achieve patriotism, courage, self-reliance, kindred virtues, etc by getting scouts active outside having adventures. The nature of working together to solve the challenges of outdoor adventures instills the BSA values in the scouts. To be blunt, the outdoor adventures and time with their friends is what attracts scouts (and parents). The values are why BSA says it exists. The values are important to the parents, but many parents would argue baseball, football and hockey support the same values. BSA is unique and special because of the outdoor method to install the values. IMHO, the rest is a mush to try to be everything to everyone.

It's not advancement that's the problem. Kids want to brag. The problem is shallow covered topics that are not part of the core of scouting. Advancement should be outdoor, adventure, troop skills. Five shallow covered citizen batches to earn Eagle? ... including citizen of the family Merit badges where the badge is often effectively a joke. How many scouts have said when asked what they learned? "I really don't know." or "Nothing." IMHO ... to earn cycling, the scout should go on a campout where there is a 50+ mile bike ride. ... to earn hiking, the troop should do a campout with a 10+ miles of hiking (5+ each direction) ... to earn canoeing, canoe in the real world as part of an adventure. I'm okay with academic merit badges because someone will always want them. Fine. ... BUT ... Scouting advancement should be focused around outdoors, adventure and working together in a troop.